T H E H U M A N F A C T O R I N A G R I C U L T U R A L M A N A G E M E N T

Zeszyty Problemowe Post$p6w Nauk Rolniozyoh Warszawa 1970

The Human Factor in Farm Management. Some Research Findings from the Netherlands *

A. W. VAN DEN BAN

Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

INTRODUCTION

One of the few. constants in agriculture today is its constant change. Ir order to make a good income a farmer has to adjust his enterprise con­tinuously to new technical possibilities and to changing price relationships. The question is how far farmers are able to make these adujstments. There can be several difficulties:

(1) Some farmers do not have enough capital and do not save enough of their incomes to be able to make these adjustments.

(2) Some farmers do not receive enough information about new de­velopments in agricultural research and about changing market condi­tions.

(3) Perhaps some farmers do not have the intelligence and other per­sonal qualities needed to make correct decisions on the basis of the infor­mation they receive.

(4) Farmers, just as other people, are influenced in their behaviour by the norms of the groups to which they belong. Changes in these norms frequently lag behind changes in the situation, e.g. the ideal of a good farmer might be adjusted to what a good farmer would have done a gene­ration ago.

(5) Some of the goals of farmers are based on situations in the past and cannot be realized in present conditions, e.g. some farmers wish to continue to be farmers and to have incomes comparable to those in other occupations, without the human and material resources which make such incomes possible.

The last four points involve human factors in farm management which have been studied from different theoretical angles. Little research has

* I am indebted to Mr. B. van der Ploeg for a critical reading of a draft of this paper.

80 A. W. VAN DEN B A N

been done in the Netherlands within the framework of farm management research. More has been.done by analysing the diffusion of new farm prac­tices. This is done mainly by studying the characteristics of those farmers who first adopted new practices and by analysing the way in which they decided to adopt them. There are a few related studies which tried to evaluate farm management extension techniques.

FARM MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

There are large differences in farm income on farms which operate under similar conditions as to farm size, quality of soil and other produc­tion factors. One generally assumes that these differences are largely due to differences in the quality of farm management *. Therefore it is astonishing that in the Netherlands only a few attempts have been made to correlate farm income and related variables with the quality of the farm management. A first study was done by Hamming [2]. He analysed survey research data from a random sample of farms by factor analysis. By comparing this with a factor analysis of farm management data from non-randomly selected-farms he estimated that 64% of the difference in farm income per man could be explained by differences in the number of man work units per man.

In his correlation matrix one of the variables the level of vocational agricultural education of the farmer or his son over 18 years, and another their contacts with the agricultural extension service. One factor had a loading of 0.88 for the number of man work units per man and one of 0.17 for vocational agricultural education and somewhat less for contacts with extension. The only other factor which had loading for vocational agricultural education (0.4) had no loading for the number of man work units per man. The other loadings in this factor indicated that on larger farms more people were employed and the production was more intensive.

There are several ways in which the limited effects of vocational agri­cultural education and contact with extension can be explained: (1) At the time the data were gather (1957) the extension service" had been giving more attention to increasing the production per ha. and per animal than per man. No measures were available in this study for the yields and costs per ha. or per animal. (2) The measurement of the level of vocational agricultural education of the farm family was not ideal. It was assumed for instance that on a farm where the farmer himself had no vocational agricultural education, but his son of 18 had attended an agricultural

* In the U.S. several studies have shown that a farmer's knowledge of modern farming, his value orientation and the way in which he makes his decisions, have much influence on his income, e.g. Ref. 1.

THE HUMAN FACTOR IN FARM MANAGEMENT 81

winter school, this education would have the same effect as on a farm where the farmer himself had attended one. Where a son is working on a small farm the income is probably rather low. because of an oversupply of labour.

In a further study somewhat more serious attempts were made to measure the human factors [3]. For 40 farmers three variables were cor­related with a three-year average of labour income per hour and 27 other farm management data, and a factor analysis was applied to this correla­tion matrix. These three variables were:

(1) Education: Vocational agricultural education as well as general education. The education of a son over 18 years old working full time on the farm was counted half of the education of the farmer himself.

(2) Interest in new developments. The adoption of seven recommended farm practices and contact with four sources of information excluding the extension service.

(3) Socio-economic status. Reading of national papers and of books, visits to the cinema, activity in associations, use of modern appliances in the home, education desired for a son, etc.

The correlation coefficient with labour income per hour was 0.07 for education, 0.12 for interest in new development and 0,38 for socio-eco­nomic status. Perhaps the low correlation with interest in new develop­ments was partly caused by a tendency among these farmers to have higher gross incomes as well as higher expenses than farmers with less interest new developments. The factor analysis gave three factors which were responsible for the correlation between socio-economic statut and income:

(1) Farmer with higher socio-economic status had better quality grass­land and therefore higher net incomes from their dairy cows without higher milk yields per cow.

(2) Their farms were larger. (3) They lived predominantly in an area with somewhat more fa­

vourable conditions for production. The low, correlations found in this study are probably partly due to the

system of selection of the farms studied. Unfortunately they were not selected randomly, but were chosen as being typical for the area and reasonably well managed. This makes it possible e.g. that only the more intelligent farmers with low levels of education were included in the study. .. -

In one other study differences in the number of man work units per man were explained as being on a kind of empathy scale, the number of opinion questions on which the farmer had given no answer [4]. By divid­ing his respondents into three groups according to their levels of empathy, Behvenuti found in each of three farm-size groups that the high group was about 20% higher in the number of man work units per man than the low

6 — The Human Factor

82 A. W. VAN DEN B A N

group. These differences were about as large as the differences between the farm size groups, a factor to which agricultural economists have been giving a lot of attention. In other parts of his study Benvenuti shows that his measure for empathy is a rather good indication of the degree of acceptance of a modern cultural pattern, a modern way of thinking, by farmers.

At present at the Agricultural Economic Research Institute at the Hague at attempt is being made to explain differences in farm income which may be due to the psychological characteristics of farmers. These characteristics have been measured with graphological techniques. Appa­rently very low correlations have been found. This may be due to the low reliability of the techniques or to the fact that—not certain characteris­tic—but configurations of characteristics are important. It is possible for instance that a farmer's lack of intelligence may not reduce his income a great deal so long as he is willing to listen to good advice.

It is clear that not much attention has been given to the influence of human factors on farm income in the Netherlands. This is regrettable because without such research it is hard to design a good curriculum for the vocational agricultural schools in which most of our young farmers are trained. In addition there are some indications that not many intelli­gent boys enter agriculture. The army examination of recruits for instance gave indications about 15 years ago that of the recruits working in agri­culture only 10%. were in the top two intelligence classes, compared with 20% for the sons of farm loabourers working outside agriculture. It is not known whether or not this is an undesirable situation for the future of Dutch agriculture.

Up to now most farm management research in the Netherlands has considered only income as a goal for farmers. Undoubtedly they have many other goals such as security, leisure, status and pleasure in cattle breeding or in other activities. Therefore farmers who organize their farms so that they do not achieve the highest income, may achieve their goals in quite a rational way, although this is sometimes not recognized by agricultural economists.

DIFFUSION RESEARCH

Characteristics of different adopter categories

Many diffusion studies all over the world among farmers and other groups have investigated which kinds of people are the first to adopt new ideas.

On the basis of the data in the Diffusion Documents Centre, Depart­ment of Communication, Michigan State University, Rogers and Stanfield

THE HUMAN FACTOR IN FARM MANAGEMENT 3 3

recently prepared a summary of these studies. Table 1 gives the number of studies in which a certain correlation was found between the character­istics of the decision-maker or of his firm and the adoption of new, ideas.

In the Netherlands similar results have been obtained in a number of studies. In some of them the effects of one variable have been studied while keeping some other variables constant, or factor analysis has been employed (see e.g. [5]). Here again, not much effect of vocational agricul­tural education could be found. In several of these studies, too, the judge-

Table 1. Variables Belated to Innovation

Number of publications with each

positive,

%

lationship

none, 0/

/o

Non-attitudinal characteristics of the unit of adoption Age Education Literacy Income Level of living

28 144

19 90 33

64 31

6 12

4

to innovation

negative,

%

51 10

1 7 1

Attitudinal or interior characteristics of the unit of adoption Mental rigidity-Empathy Knowledgeability Atti tude toward change Business orientation Achievement, motivation Aspirations for children Satisfaction with life

5 3

14 117

3 11 19 2

Type of relationship of the unit with sooial Opinion leadership Deviation from norms Group participation Cosmopolitizm (mobility) Mass media exposure Inter-personal exposure Contact with change agencies

9 15

123 59 42 28

125

6 0

12 23

1 4 2 2

system 3 4

16 8 6 6 9

12 1 1

13 1 0 1 3

1 8

10 2 0 6 0

type of re-

condit­ional

15 8 1 3 2

1 0 1 6 0 2 1 0

1 1 7 4 1 0 2

Total number

of publica­tions

168 193 27

112 40

24 4

55 159

5 17 23 7

14 28

156 73 49 40

136

Rogers B.M. and Stanficld J.D., Adoption and diffusion of new products; emerging generalizations and hypotheses pp. 38 (1966) (mimeograph).

ment of the local extension officers of the quality of the management on different farms was used as an independent variable. Other variables correlate with this judgement in much the same way as with the adoption of new farm practices. I cannot prove that this judgement correlates with

84 A. W. VAN DEN BAN

farm income, but I assume it does, because in the Netherlands each local extension officer works in an area with about 500 farms and usually knows them pretty well.

At first the characteristics of the different adopter categories were assumed to be due to the fact that the culture of the Dutch countryfolk is changing from a traditional to a modern pattern, in which the people are

Table 2

Aspects

Reaction towards change

Value attached to agricultural science manual labour leisure land

Willingness to take risks in the business

Interest in education Expenditure calculations include

Relations with other members community

Factions Formal organizations Status differences

) farm

of the

Confidence in the honesty of govern­ment officials

Opinion about events outside the unity

comm-

Communications with extension officers

Traditionalists

Resisted

Low High Low High

Low Low Cash expense only

Open families Many Not accepted Rigid .

Low

None Very difficult

Moderns

To some extent accepted as natural

Rather high Indifferent Rather high Rather low

Rather high High Also depreciation, family la­

bour, etc.

Closed families Few Accepted Flexible

Rather high

Clear Rather easy

Van den Ban A.V., Cultural Change: The basis for increasing agricultural productivity, InUtn. Revietv ofOommu-nity Development, No. 12 (1903).

much better informed about what happens in the world, and are willing to consider whether new ideas might not help to achieve their goals. In the traditional culture many ideas are rejected without even being seriously considered, simply because they deviate from the old way of doing things [4]. The differences between modern and traditional farmers can be sum­marized as illustrated in Table 2.

Later on it was found that in areas with modern cultural patterns also, such as our new polders, the farmers frequently hoped to maintain their traditional way of life. Arable farmers might be quite willing to consider new plant protection methods, but not to switch to broiler production or to cooperate intensively with some neighbours in the use of labour and machinery, because that would change their way of life (see [6]).

THE HUMAN FACTOR IN F A R M M A N A G E M E N T 85

DECISION MAKING

In the Netherlands farmers can receive information on new develop­ments from many different sources. The government employs one ex­tension officer for every 125 farmers and market gardeners, commercial companies employ even more, and there are about 150 agricultural jour­nals published in the Country. In addition there are meetings, machinery shows, demonstration farm, etc. On many problems, therefore, farmers who really try can get the information they need, but not all farmers do try. Whether or not they receive much information depends on:

(1) The need they fell to adjust their enterprises to new development. Many old farmers, especially those without successors, do not feel such a need.

(2) The self-esteem they have and therefore their willingness to bother extension officers with their problems.

(3) Their knowledge of modern agriculture. Those farmers especially who are well informed about the results of agricultural research ask for more information, partly because some of the information is presented in language that is too difficult.

The type of farmer who receives much information on new develop­ments corresponds roughly to the type who has adopted many new prac­tices [5]. In general and speaking objectively, those farmers who are most in need of this information receive least. This is the case not only in the Netherlands, but also in all other countries from which I have seen re­search on this problem summary of this research gives [7];

Usually it takes several years after a farmer has heard of a new idea for the first time before he adopts it himself. Research shows quite clearly that farmers receive their first information about new farm practices mainly from the farm papers, radio and other mass media, but do not adopt them until they have discussed them personally with somebody in whose judgement they have confidence. In the Netherlands the more progressive farmers usually discuss these practices with their extension officers; the less progressive farmers mainly with their colleagues [5]. In this way new farm practices gradually trickle down through the com­munity until nearly all farmers have adopted them. By this time, however, the innovators have often switched to an even never practice.

In most of these diffusion studies the adoption process has been studied for new. farm practices in general, but in one study the adoption of the milking machine alone was studied [9]. This was done because 60% of the farms where agricultural economists considered it profitable to use milking machines did not have any in 1960. It was found that most of the farmers who had bought milking machines had done so because their labourers had left or because a member of the family was no longer able

86 A. W. VAN DEN B A N

to milk by hand. Usually it was not part of a long-term plan for the de­velopment of a farm. This may have been because farmers did not under­stand that a sizeable increase in their labour productivity would be ne­cessary if they were to continue to farm, or because they saw the necessity, but did not see how to realize it.

EVALUATION OF FARM MANAGEMENT EXTENSION METHODS

Some small studies have tried to evaluate farm management extension methods. Most farmers in the Netherlands have their accounts kept for fiscal purpose and the extension service has stimulated them to keep, in addition, somewhat different accounts for farm management purposes. This is done by only about 4% of farmers despite the subsidies given for the purpose. Probably one reason is that an attempt was made to induce them to keep such accounts before they had been made to feel a need for information which could be provided in no other way. This was why it was necessary to study how farmers used the data from their accounts. In this study on dairy farms, which on the average had kept these accounts for 10 eyars, the farmers were asked to which data they gave special attention when they received the annual reparts of their results and of some 30 other farms [10]. Only 9% of them mentioned the number of cows per man, whereas research shows that on this type of farm this is the major factor influencing farm income. It was mentioned more frequently by the high income farmers than by the low income farmers, who gave more attention to milk production per cow, information for which farm management accounts are not needed. It was also found that 45% of these farmers-did not expect an increase in labour productivity on their farms in the next 10 years. Again, such an increace was expected more frequently by the farmers with high incomes than with low incomes. Apparently the high income farmers'are more aware that they have to adjust their farms to the changing situation, which in our Country includes an increase in wages of about 100% in 10 years and in prices of farm products of about 20%. '

Part of this group had their farm management accounts kept for re­search purposes without having to pay for it. At the termination of the research project they were given the option to continue for a fee. About half of them.did so. They had annual net incomes about 4000 guilders higher than farms of about the same size which did not. Also, the farmers who agreed to discuss the annual reports of their accounts with a small group of other farmers had considerably higher incomes than those who were less favourable to this idea. A reason why farmers with low incomes frequently do not keep farm management accounts may be that these accounts can decrease their self-esteem and their status in the community.

THE HUMAN FACTOR IN FARM MANAGEMENT 87

In one district extension education in farm management is given, not by starting with economic theory, but by starting from the farming situation in the villages. This is analysed and discussed in a group of about 15 farmers in a series of 10 sessions. During these discussions the farmers discover for themselves that their situation is much less favourable than they thought and that important change are necessary. In an evaluation of this method after the meetings were finished considerable differences were found between the participants and the 'non-participants in their opinions about what a good farmer does [11]. The paticipants gave much more attention to high labour productivity, which farm management-research shows to be the major factor influencing farm income in this area, and less attention to good crops, not too many weeds, and good cattle, which used to be important for a farmer's success. The effects of these discussion groups have probably not only been that the participants have learned to apply modern farm management concepts, but also that the group norms on what a farmer ought to do have changed. The behaviour of most people, farmers as well as other people, is influenced by these group norms, by what other people except them to do. Therefore it is difficult to change their behaviour without changing these group norms.

SUMMARY

It is generally believed that the personal qualities of a farmer make a lot of difference in his farm income, but it is not known which qualities correlate with a high income in the Netherlands. It is known, however, that the farmers who have adopted many new farm practices and are judged by the local extension officers to be good farmers, are well informed about what happens outside the gates of their own farms and outside their own villages. Also they have more resources and,higher status in their communities than those who adopt these practices later.

In deciding about the adoption of new farm practices most farmers get their first information from the mass media, but they do not decide to adopt the practices without a personal discussion with somebody they consider competent.

Dutch farmers do not have much interest in farm management accounts, partly because they have not learned to recognize the most relevant parts of the information thus provided, and partly because for the less capable farmers it is not pleasant to get realistic information about their situation.

Group norms about what a good farmer ought to do are not infrequent­ly based on the situation as it was a generation ago. Well directed group discussions can be used to change these norms.

88 A. W. VAN DEN B A N

REFERENCES

1. Hess C. V. and Miller L. F., Some personal, economic and sociological factors influencing dairyman's actions and success, Pennsylvania Agr. Exp. Station

. Bull., 577, University Park (1954); Hobbs D. J., Beal G. M. and Bohlen J. M., The relation of farm operator values and attitudes to their economic perfor­mance, Rural Sociological Report, No. 33, Iowa State University, Ames, (1964).

2. Hamming G., Een bedrijfsvergelijkend streekonderzoek op de zandgronden (Com­paring Farms on Sandy Soil by Survey Research), Rapport 384, Landbouw-Eco-nomisch Instituut, The Hague.

3. Aspecten van bedrijven op komgronden (Aspects of Farms on Heavy River Clay Soil), pp. 23, Landbouw-Economisch Instituut, The Hague, unpublished report (1960).

4. Benvenuti B., Farming in Cultural Change, pp. 335-339, Van Gorcum, Assen (1961).

5. van den Ban A. W., Some characteristics of progressive farmers in the Nether­lands, Rural Sociology, 22, 205—212 (1957); van den Ban A. W., Boer en land-bbuwvoorlichting; de communicatie van nieuwe landbouwmethoden (The Com­munication of New Farm Practices), pp. 279, Van Gorcum, Assen (1963).

6. Constandse A. K., Boer en toekomstbeeld (Farmers and the Image of the Cul­ture), ASS-Bull., No. 24, 79, Wageningen (1964).

7. Rogers E. M., Diffusion of Innovations, pp. 367, New York, Free Press (1962). 8. Visser J., De houding van de .tuinders in een drietal groenteteeltcentra van het

Rijkstuinbouwconsulentschap Arnhem tegenover de tuinbouwvoorlichting (The Attitude of Vegetable Growers in Three Areas Towards the Horticulural Ex­tension Service), pp. 70, Wageningen (February 1967); Bauwens A.L.G.M. and Heunks F. J., De landbouw in Sprang-Capelle; een economisch-sociologisch onderzoek (Agriculture in Sprang-Capelle; an Economic-sociological Study), Verslagen No. 66, pp. 91-92, Landbouw-Economisch Instituut, Den Haag (1963).

9. Velde S. T., Waarom wordt een melkmachine aangeschaft? (Why is a Milking Machine Bought?) Rapport 124, Proefstation voor Akker- en Weidebouw, Wa­geningen (1962).

10. Krabbenborg H. A., Verandering en verbetering; via voorlichting? (Change and Improvement; Through Extension Education?), pp. 79, Afd. Voorlichtingskunde van de Landbouwhogeschool, Wageningen (1967).

11. van Santen C. E., De studieclub; bedrijfseconomische discussiegroepen voor landbouwers in Zuid-Gelderland (The Study Group; Farm Management Dis­cussion Groups for Farmers in Southern Gelderland), Afd. Voorlichtingskunde van de Landbouwhogeschool, Wageningen (1965).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(Dutch publications which give some attention to human factors in farm manage­ment and which have not yet been quoted are as follows)

Ban A. W. van den, Wie worden door de landbouwvoorlichtingsdienst bereikt? (Who are Reached by the Extension Service?), Landbouwkundig Tijdschrift, 65, 6, 317-327 (1953).

— Enkele kenmerken en eigenschappen van de vooruitstrevende boeren (Some Cha­racteristics of Progressive Farmers), ASS-Bull, No. 5, 54; No. 10, 78, Wa­geningen.

THE HUMAN FACTOR IN F A R M MANAGEMENT 89

— Research in the field of advisory work, Neth. Journal of Agr., 9, 2, 122-133 (1961). — (with E. M. Rogers): Research on the diffusion of agricultural innovations in

the United States and the Netherlands, Sociologies Ruralis, III 38-51 (1963). — A revision of the two-step flow of communication, Gazette, 10, No. I l l , 237-249

(1964); The communication of new farm practices in the Netherlands, Sociolo-logia Neerlandica, II, No. II, 1-18 (1965).

Bauwens A.L.G.M., Sandt M.A.J, van der and Heunks F. J., De landbouw in Ruc-phen, Economisch-Sociologische gezichtspunten (Agriculture in Rucphen from an Economic-sociological Point of View), Verslagen No. 67 Landbouw-Eco-nomisch Instituut, Den Haag (1963).

Bergsma R., Op weg naar een nieuw cultuurpatroon (On the Road to a New Cul­tural Pattern), p. 228, Van Gorcum, Assen (1963).

Broecke A. M. van den, Rapport betreffenden een sociologisch onderzoek. naar de investeringsbereidheid en de bereidheid krediet voor het landbouwbedrijf op te nemen in de Alblasserwaard (Report of a Sociological Study Regarding the Willingness to Invest and to Use Credit in the Alblasserwaard), p. 55, Sticht-ing Landbouwbelang Alblasserwaard, Vijfherenlanden (1963).

Felstehausen H., Economic knowledge and comprehension in a Netherlands farming community, ASS-Bull, No. 26, 120, Wageningen (1965).

— Economic knowledge and participation in farmer decision-making in a develop­ed and an under-developed country, The International Journal of Agrarian Affairs, Oxford, England (1967).

Groot J. P. (with F. L. Verhey): Moderne Agrarische bedrijfsopvolging (Transfer of Farms to the Next Generation), p. 83, Zwolle (1964).

Hofstee E. W., Over de oorzaken van de verscheidenheid in de Bederlandse land-bouwgebieden (On the Reasons for Regional Differences in Dutch Agricultu­re), p. 32, Inaugurele rede, Wageningen (1946).

— Sociologische aspecten van de landbouwvoorlichting (Sociological Aspects of Extension Education), ASS-Bull. No. 1, 26, Wageningen (1953).

— Rural Life and Rural Welfare in the Netherlands, p. 364, Staatsdrukkerij, Den Haag (1957).

— Sociological Environment; Environmental Conditions for Agricultural Develop­ment. Proceedings of the 11th Intern. Conference of Agricultural Economics. The role of agriculture in economy, Mexico (1961).

— General Review of the Human Factor in Agricultural Development. Rehovoth Conference on Comprehensive Planning of Agriculture in Developing Count­ries, Rehovoth, Israel, August 19-23, 1963.

— European Perspectives of Agricultural Changes and Societal Adaptions. Farm Goals in Conflict. Report of the Second Conference of the Iowa State Univers­ity Center for Agricultural and Economic Development, February 1963, Ch. 18, pp. 188-200, The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa (1963).

— Over het modern-dynamisch-cultuurpatroon (On the Modern Dynamic-cultural Pattern), Sociologische Gids, 13, No. 3, 139-154 (1966).

Arbeidsbezetting, bedrijfsoppervlakte, veebezetting en.bedrijfsinkoman op de veen-weidebedrijven in Friesland (Number of Labourers, Farm Size, Number of Cattle and Farm Income on the Dairy Farms on Peat Soil in Friesland), B.E.M., No. 43, Landbouw-Economisch Instituut, Den Haag (1962).

Muggen G., De invloed van de boer op zijn bedrijfsresultaat; cen literatuurstudie (The Influence of the Farmer on Farm Income; A Study of the Literature), p. 11, Unpublished Report, Dept. of Psychology, Agricultura University, Wa­geningen (1966).

90 A. W. VAN DEN B A N

Ploeg B. van der, De betekenis van deraonstratiebedrijven voor Walcherse boeren (The Importance of Demonstration Farms for Farmers on Walcheren), p. 92, Dept. of Extension Education, Agricultura University, Wageningen (1966).

Veer J. de, De praktische betekenis van het bedrijfsvergelijkend onderzoek voor de landbouwvoorlichting (The Practical Importance of Comparative Farm Management Research for Agricultural Extension), Landbouwvoorlichting, 22, No. 6, 275-280 (1965).

Wichers A. J., De beoefening van de bloemisterij en groenteteelt te Beesd (The Management of Floriculture and Vegetable Growing at Beesd), ASS-Bull., No. 3, 66, Wageningen (1956).

— Voorkeuren voor voorlichting. Verslag van een onderzoek naar de voorlichtings-patronen voor tuinbouwbedrijf en huishouden in De Streek (Preferences for Different Extension Methods), ASS-Bull., No. 13, 137, Wageningen (1959).

— De oude plattelandsbeschaving; een sociologische bewustwording van de „over-herigheid" (The Old Peasant Culture), p. 285, Dissertation, Rotterdam (1965).